Xs Cad India P.Ltd , Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax

सव ौी नरे ि कुमार ब लै या, लेखा सदःय एवं ववेक वमा , याियक सदःय के सम%

BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5001/Mum/2013 िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 (िनधा

The ITO-8(3)-4, बनाम M/s. XS Cad India Pvt. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 311, Mahavir Industrial Estate, Off. Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 ःथायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AAACX 0304P (अपीलाथ) /Appellant) .. (ू+यथ) / Respondent) अपीलाथ) ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla

ू+यथ) क- ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Jignesh R Shah

सुनवाई क- तार/ख / Date of Hearing :05.03.2015 घोषणा क- तार/ख /Date of Pronouncement :05.03.2015

आदे श / O R D E R

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

With this appeal the Revenue has challenged the correctness of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-18,Mumbai dt. 30.4.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.

2 ITA No. 5001/M/2013 2. The sole grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the assessee's enhanced claim of deduction u/s. 10A @ 100% against 50% claimed by the assessee.

3. The short issue before us is that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s. 10A @ 50% of business income in place of 100% eligibility.

4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised computation of income claiming 100% deduction to which it was eligible. The claim of the assessee was denied by the AO. The AO drew support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs CIT 284 ITR 323.

5. The matter travelled before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) found that there is no dispute in so far as the eligibility of the claim is concerned. The assessee is very much eligible for 100% deduction though in the return of income 50% deduction was claimed. Drawing support from various decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the claim of deduction u/s. 10A @ 100% as claimed by the assessee.

6. Aggrieved by this, Revenue is before us. This issue is no more res- integra as it has been settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 336 wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (supra) and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs CIT229 ITR 383 and finally concluded that even if a claim is not made before the AO, it can be 3 ITA No. 5001/M/2013

made before the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Supreme Court in this judgement. In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear that the issue in the case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and that the judgement does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal u/s. 254 of the Act.

7. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd (supra), we decline to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A).

8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 5th March, 2015

Sd/- Sd/-

(VIVEK VARMA ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) याियक सदःय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

मुंबई Mumbai; 3दनांक Dated :5th March, 2015 व.िन.स./ RJ , Sr. PS 4 ITA No. 5001/M/2013

आदे श क- ूितिल प अमे षत/Copy षत of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ) / The Appellant

2. ू+यथ) / The Respondent.

3. आयकर आयु5(अपील) / The CIT(A)-

4. आयकर आयु5 / CIT

5. वभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai

6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानुसार/ ार BY ORDER, स+या पत ूित //True Copy// उप/सहायक उप सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai